Albright v. Teas’s Empirical Analysis
106 U.S. 613 · 1882
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2005 · most notably Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. (1926), Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works (1923)
38 federal appellate · 9 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Hartell v. Tilghman · James G. Wilson v. George A. Sanford and Robert G. Musgrove
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The dispute in this case does not arise under any act of Congress; nor does the decision depend upon the construction of any law in relation to patents. It arises out of the contract stated in the. bill; and there is no act of Congress providing for or regulating contracts of this kind: The rights of the parties depend altogether upon common law and equity principles.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An action upon an agreement in writing, by which, in consideration of a license from the patentee to make and sell the invention, the licensee acknowledges the validity of the patent, stipulates that the patentee ma5>- obtain reissues thereof, and promises to pay certain royalties so long as the patent shall not have been adjudged invalid, is not a case arising under the patent laws of the United States, and is within the jurisdiction of the state courts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is clear, from an inspection of the bill and answers, that the case is founded upon the agreement in writing between the appellee and the appellants, ⅞ * ⅜ by which the former, for a consideration therein specified, transferred to the latter his interest in certain letters patent. The suit was brought to recover the consideration for this transfer, and was not based on the letters patent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.